BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 194 of 2015
Date of Institution : 02.11.2015
Date of decision : 13.10.2016
Rohit son of Bhushan Lal, resident of House No.369, Rajputana Mohalla, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Wadhwa Mobile Care, near Jaipur Hospital, Circular Road, Sirsa.
2. Chugh Telecom Sony Mobile Service Centre, Sangwan chowk, Sirsa.
3. Head Office Sony India private Limited, A-31 Mohan Corporative, Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SH. RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………… ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.S. Mandia, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the opposite parties no.2 & 3.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone model Sony Xperia C5. Dual sim from opposite party no.1 on 16.9.2015 for a sum of Rs.28000/- vide bill No.53870 dated 16.9.2015 with warranty of one year. However, after 10-15 days of its purchase, problem of display and heating occurred in the mobile upon which complainant approached op no.1 for replacement of the mobile. The op no.1 told that there is problem in the software of mobile and asked him to approach op no.2. The op no.2 got deposited the mobile from the complainant on 12.10.2015 for repair and issued a receipt in this regard and then handed over the mobile after keeping the same for two-three hours in the care centre. When the complainant again used the mobile, same problem again occurred. The complainant again approached to op no.2 who kept the mobile with it and asked to come after two/three days and then complainant visited the op no.2 several times for taking his mobile but mobile was not handed over to him after repair. Thereafter, complainant also approached op no.1 and stated him that mobile has not been repaired by op no.2 and asked him to replace the mobile with new one but he flatly refused to do so. In this way, the complainant has suffered mental harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.2 & 3 replied that complainant has been provided excellent post sales services and his grievances have been redressed. The last time when the complainant had approached the ops, the ops had kept the mobile under observations and also performed battery test for the mobile but did not find any trouble and the same was working in perfect condition and merely a software upgrade was required to be performed. The complainant has not submitted any expert report or opinion as required under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. In order to ensure the longevity of the mobile phone, instructions in the user’s manual have to be strictly followed. In case the same are not followed the mobile phone or any product shall suffer due to mishandling. During the period of warranty, repair or replacement is the sole discretion of op no.3 alone. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. None appeared on behalf of op no.1 despite service, therefore, op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of bill dated 16.9.2015 Ex.C2. On the other hand, ops No.2 & 3 have tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1, copy of resolution Ex.OPW1/1, copy of warranty card Ex.OPW1/2 and test report Ex.OPW1/3.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 & 3 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. It has been established on record that complainant has purchased the mobile in question from op no.1 on 16.9.2015 for a sum of Rs.28,000/- as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C2. The complainant is alleging defects of display and heating in the mobile just after one month of its purchase and has also alleged that ops have failed to repair or replace the mobile in question as per warranty. Whereas ops No.2 & 3 have averred that they had kept the mobile under observation and also performed battery test but did not find any trouble in the mobile and the same was working in perfect condition and have placed on file battery test report in this regard as Ex.OPW1/3. No doubt, the complainant has not placed on file any expert opinion to show that mobile in question is having manufacturing defect and normal wear and tear cannot be said to be manufacturing defect. However, as the complainant is alleging defect in the display besides heating problem whereas in the test report Ex.OPW1/2 there is no mention of display and the test report only pertains to battery of the mobile, therefore, the opposite parties are liable to repair the mobile in question and to make it defect free as per warranty.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties either to repair the mobile in question and to make it defect free or to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same description or with mobile of equivalent value within a period of one month on production of mobile by the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:13.10.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
